scholarly journals HSCJN: A holistic semantic constraint joint network for diverse response generation

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 101135
Author(s):  
Yiru Wang ◽  
Pengda Si ◽  
Zeyang Lei ◽  
Guangxu Xun ◽  
Yujiu Yang
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 237-242
Author(s):  
Carsten Peust

“Once more on Earlier Egyptian cataphora” -- This is a supplement to Uljas’ recent paper on cataphora in Earlier Egyptian. Opposing his suggestion of a semantic constraint in the use of cataphora, I argue that the principal constraint in Egyptian cataphora is a syntactic one: A personal pronoun may only receive a cataphoric interpretation if it refers to the subject of the clause.


1970 ◽  
Vol 48 (1A) ◽  
pp. 84-85
Author(s):  
R. J. Jarvella ◽  
S. J. Herman ◽  
D. B. Pisoni
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 42-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Ju Chou ◽  
Hsu-Wen Huang ◽  
Chia-Lin Lee ◽  
Chia-Ying Lee
Keyword(s):  

1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Williamson

Chomsky (in syntax) and Davidson (in semantics) have made much of the constraint that speakers’ competence must have a finite base. This base is often supposed to mean a finite axiomatization of beliefs. Section I shows why this is plausible. Section II shows why it is wrong. Section III shows why the semantic constraint is thereby trivialized.'Finite minds cannot have infinitely many beliefs’ has been taken for a useful truism. A theory of meaning, say, for a language may, for each of its infinitely many sentences, attribute to competent speakers knowledge, in some sense, and so in a corresponding sense belief, about the meaning (or some substitute for it) of that sentence. Our truism seems to force this paradox to immediate and constructive resolution: as finite minds we have a finite view on our language that recognizably entails an infinity of propositions about it.


2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVELYNE LAGROU ◽  
ROBERT J. HARTSUIKER ◽  
WOUTER DUYCK

Until now, research on bilingual auditory word recognition has been scarce, and although most studies agree that lexical access is language-nonselective, there is less consensus with respect to the influence of potentially constraining factors. The present study investigated the influence of three possible constraints. We tested whether language nonselectivity is restricted by (a) a sentence context in a second language (L2), (b) the semantic constraint of the sentence, and (c) the native language of the speaker. Dutch–English bilinguals completed an English auditory lexical decision task on the last word of low- and high-constraining sentences. Sentences were pronounced by a native Dutch speaker with English as the L2, or by a native English speaker with Dutch as the L2. Interlingual homophones (e.g., lief “sweet” – leaf /liːf/) were always recognized more slowly than control words. The semantic constraint of the sentence and the native accent of the speaker modulated, but did not eliminate interlingual homophone effects. These results are discussed within language-nonselective models of lexical access in bilingual auditory word recognition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document